Perceived bias

Anyone who actually knows me know better than to ask who I root for. I root for the game to get over so we can make deadline.

 

exactly. I don't root for a team, I root for conclusion.

 

I used to have a reporter from a neighboring paper say "good luck to you guys" after every game we covered together.

I covered four different schools, and had no real attachment to or need for affinity for either one of them, so I'd just politely find a way to deflect the wishes. "I hope we put out a good paper tomorrow. Good luck to you guys in doing that, too."

 

Maybe that's what he meant? I know a few guys from the other paper, and I'll say something like "good luck tonight," knowing that 10000 things can go wrong after the game. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

 

For a stretch, I would say to some of the reporters who cover other conference schools, "Enjoy the rest of the season." A guy asked me about it once, and I told him what I meant - try to have fun on the job, enjoy the travel, etc. It wasn't really until that point that I thought there could be any subtle hints about cheering for a good team or anything of the sort.

Now I just stick to "take care." Don't think there's anything to be made from that.

 

I always find it amusing every time a thread like this starts how there are those who go to great lengths to show just how "unbiased" they are.
Whatever.
It’s a false notion. There is, by nature, always a bias in our writing. I mean you are writing the story because the team in your coverage area is playing, so the story will have a bias toward their performance. People at the Podunk Press don’t care why Buttcrack U beat Podunk College, they want to know why Podunk College couldn’t beat Buttcrack U. If you don’t understand the difference, rethink your job, because it’s not always one in the same.

The entire perception that we don’t root for a team to win or lose is also a load of crap. Cheer in the press box? No. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t happy when a team we are covering wins or even losses, as the case may be. It's okay to root for the team to win. Just don't be blatant about it in the press box.
People will never understand how our job works, go with it.
And yes I understand this isn’t why the thread got started, but it’s ultimately where it ends up. Just go with the flow.

You stay in this biz long enough, and unless you become completely jaded, you will likely cover a team you like (or dislike). I’m not ashamed to say I am glad the Rangers made the World Series. I don’t cover them now, but I did and have been a Rangers fan before I started in journalism. So yeah, I was happy when I was at a game and they won, and I’ll always be rooting (internally) for them to win.
I was glad when the Longhorns missed the bowls this year as, despite his very cooperative attitude toward the media, I’ve never been a big fan of Mack Brown, and I have covered some of their games this year.
I like Art Briles, I like Robert Griffin and I was rooting for their bowl-less streak to end and I covered some of their games this year.
We root, by nature. The guy covering politics is usually rooting for one of the candidates to win, but he’s professional enough not to slant his coverage toward one (hopefully).
I may not have any vested interest or Buttcrack or Podunk, but that is no reason not to root for the team I cover to win. If nothing else, it usually makes talking to the head coach a lot easier afterward.

Never stop being a fan. If you can’t be a fan and still give a fair and accurate game story, that’s when you have problem. But if you are the Pittsburgh Steelers’ beat writer, you also can’t tell your editor “sorry I can’t cover the game tonight, I’m a lifelong Packers fan, and will be rooting against the Steelers.”

And while I understand the concept of breaking up beats to avoid biases until the playoffs I wouldn’t do that. A good part of being a good reporter is building relationships. If players only see you once every 4-5 games, they don’t feel like they know you. If you follow a team players open up to you. May not mean a thing to you, but it can lead to great stories. One of the guys I watched sign a couple years ago had told me how much it meant to him for his father to be there with him. A simple statement all the TV and one other print guy just went with. A few weeks into the season I saw this kid break down after a the team’s third straight loss. Talked to him about it later that week because he’s not an emotional guy, and he knew his team wasn’t that great. He mentioned it was the first time he had looked into the stands and saw his dad sitting there and the first time his dad had ever seen him score or even play. Seven years earlier his dad had been in prison caught up in drug smuggling. He shared how his dad straightened up in prison and even from behind bars, got his son on the straight and narrow. I saved that story for signing day. Now the kid was the first in his family to go to college.
You hear stuff like that all the time. But in this case, his head coach and his position coach didn’t even know about his dad’s story until I ran the story.
A roving reporter would have never gotten that.

 

The guy who said "good luck to you guys" was a guy who wore a hat from the school he covered every game ...

Is there an inherent bias in that the stories you write are from the perspective of the schools in your coverage area? Absolutely. But am I cheering for/against the teams I cover? Absolutely not. Did I have good relationships with the people I covered? Absolutely.

 

I don't know, I've covered a team that I was a fan of at my college newspaper, and to this day, I can't root for my alma mater. It's been almost two years since I left, and being a fan never came back. It's why part of me doesn't want an NHL job until I've seen my Ottawa Senators win a Stanley Cup. I'm worried covering a game involving my team will kill my support of it again. Maybe I'm just weird, but I have a hard time rooting for or against someone once I've covered them.

 

I've been able to turn it on and off, but that's mostly from preps.

When I came to my job, I was obviously unbiased in that I didn't have any allegiance to any school I covered -- although I, like any good reporter, roots for a good story -- and I was blessed to have a ton of them.

Then, I got a job teaching and coaching at one of the schools I used to cover. *That* is weird. Occasionally, the paper will have me string games when they need bodies. The only real rule I have is I can't string games in the sport I coach, because that would just be too awkward for me to interview people I coach against (too much conflict of interest), although I have covered my school more than once. You turn off the fan hat and do as professional of a job as you can.

 

I admit I want teams I cover to do well. But it has nothing to do with the teams I cover. I just find covering a team headed for a Final Four more compelling than a team headed for the CBI. I'd rather experience a Rose Bowl than a Liberty bowl, etc.

Also, I'd rather see a guy have a season like Kemba Walker than somebody struggling. It's a front row seat at something unusual and excellent. So yeah, I'm hoping the guys (or gals) I cover are able to access some level of success.

 

The town where I work has three large high schools the fans of which make up well over half of our readership, and at various times in the 8 years I've been the preps editor I have been accused of being biased for or against all three. I believe that tells me I'm doing it right.

 

My first year on the job, I had the soccer parents from County Seat High complain that I covered the rival county school too much.

The parents from the rival county school complained I covered County Seat High too much.

I knew right then I was doing my job.

Especially when one mom started complaining that I covered football too much .